User talk:Kzurl1/sandbox

Overall very good. I think a lot of the information that you provided needs to be backed up by more information about the article. The standpoint was good, very neutral and you only talked about what the articles were which was good. I would say that you need in text citations from the article where you are retrieving the information. It is crucial that you put this in your summaries because of plagiarism on the Wikipedia website. Other than that, I thought it was good, it just needs work. Sbovi1 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)sbovi1 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides a few minor errors such as missing a few quotation marks, this is very good. Citation was perfect and the edits you provided actually related to the your article.Overall, I believe your editing for your article will be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awash5 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Macklin Roman Peer review I think Kayla did a very good job and this should be added to the Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroma7 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)